Nottingham Workplace Parking Levy Package When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Nottingham levies a charge on employers in the city that offer 11 or more car parking spaces for employees, regular business visitors or pupils/students. The revenue is earmarked for transport improvements. The parking levy is a transport demand management measure that affects travel by prompting employers to manage their workplace parking and by helping to fund a package of sustainable transport measures and investments. Why should you care? This is a rare case of a workplace parking levy applying across a large area (a large proportion of the Nottingham metropolitan area). The Nottingham WPL is so far reported to be strikingly successful. It was crafted to be part of a strategic transport package for the city. Note that business sites in Nottingham do not face minimum parking requirements, so reducing parking supply is one option available to them. Country United Kingdom Vehicle type cars State/province England Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Nottingham Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Nottingham City Council Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift taxes and levies Off-street workplace Away from excessive supply AND towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted Two or more others implemented 2012 Goals of the reform "The Nottingham Workplace Parking Levy Package (WPL Package) is ... aimed at constraining congestion, providing additional sustainable transport capacity to cater for growth and contributing to making Nottingham a more attractive City for business investment." (Dale et al., 2017) Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The Transport Act 2000 allows local authorities in England and Wales to levy a charge on employers for workplace parking provided to employees. Nottingham City Council began considering a WPL soon afterwards and was granted a license to do so when the Workplace Parking Levy (England) Regulations 2009 came into force. As of 2021, Nottingham the only local authority to have used this authority. Detailed description of the reform Nottingham levies a charge on employers in the city that offer 11 or more car parking spaces for employees, regular business visitors or pupils/students. The parking levy is a transport demand management measure that affects travel by prompting employers to manage their workplace parking and by helping to fund a package of sustainable transport measures and investments. Every workplace parking space is licensed but employers with 10 or fewer spaces receive a 100 per cent exemption. This licensing requirement creates a complete database of workplace parking in the city. Parking spaces that are empty, or occupied by customers, occasional business visitors or fleet vehicles will not need to be licensed and will not be charged. There are also some limited exemptions, such as National Health Service sites and disabled parking spaces but not education. The level of the WPL for the next licensing period is £428 (USD590) per year. Annual increases in the charge are linked to increases in inflation. According to Center for Cities, "the levy raises £9 million a year which is used to fund improvement to public transport in the city and costs around £500,000 a year to run." The revenue is earmarked for transport improvements. According to Nottingham City Council, "money raised from the WPL has helped to fund NET Phase Two (the extensions to the existing tram system), which now carries more than 17m passengers a year, as well as the redevelopment of Nottingham Station. It also supports the popular Link bus network." The city council provides support for employers to develop workplace parking and mobility plans. About half of the firms that pay the levy reportedly pass the cost on to their employees (although medium-sized organizations have tended to absorb the cost) (Dale et al., 2014). Image credit: Malc McDonald / Nottingham trams, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nottingham_trams_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1735129.jpg Results or impacts Center for Cities reports: "Public transport usage is now among the highest of any city in the UK. This partly results from a local culture and policy of municipal public transport (Nottingham City Council retains majority ownership of the local bus company), which has been supported by the WPL. Nottingham was the only Core City in England to see congestion fall on A-roads in the morning rush hour from 2012, when the levy was introduced. CO2 also fell 33 per cent across the city (albeit not just because of the levy). There is little evidence that it has had a negative effect on the city’s business stock. A longer term impact will be that the land previously used for parking will be converted to the public realm, and residential and commercial uses. For example, the University of Nottingham has expanded onto land that was previously used for university car parking before the levy was introduced." Dale et al. 2017 find: "that there is strong evidence that the WPL is not having a significantly negative impact on inward investment. Additionally, strong growth in employment and output, combined with a positive movement of inward investment indicators, suggests that Nottingham remains relatively attractive to investors. There is emerging evidence from investment case studies that the public transport improvements are playing a role in this." Sources and acknowledgements Nottingham City Council, Workplace Parking Levy http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/wpl Dale, S., Frost, M., Gooding, J., Ison, S. and Warren, P. (2014), "A Case Study of the Introduction of a Workplace Parking Levy in Nottingham", Parking Issues and Policies (Transport and Sustainability, Vol. 5), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 335-360. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-994120140000005024 Dale, Simon & Frost, Matthew & Ison, Stephen & Quddus, Mohammed & Warren, Mr. (2017). Evaluating the impact of a workplace parking levy on local traffic congestion: The case of Nottingham UK. Transport Policy. 59. 153-164. 10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.07.015. Center for Cities https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/funding-financing-inclusive-growth-cities/reviewing-funding-finance-options-available-city-combined-authorities/#case-study-1-nottingham-workplace-parking-levy Last updated: 31 Mar 2021

Melbourne's ‘congestion levy’ on long-stay off-street car parking spaces When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Melbourne’s 'congestion levy' is a parking levy that applies to parking spaces used for long-stay parking. However, research suggests that the levy has ambiguous outcomes and would need reform to better achieve its stated goals. Why should you care? This is a case of a parking levy that clearly needs improvements. It raises revenue but it is not clear that it changes motorist or parking-owner behavior in helpful ways. This is a reminder that not all parking levies are the same. Poorly designed parking levies may not achieve their stated objectives. Hamer et al., 2012 conclude: “What is also clear is that a large proportion of those who park and commute to the Melbourne CBD do not pay for parking. Employers cover this as part of wider salary packaging arrangements. This is a significant barrier to the effective use of parking pricing as a means of reducing car congestion. To address the issue, policy could either deal directly with employers by targeting employment packaging arrangements or deal directly with the driver using taxation such as a road toll.” Country Australia Vehicle type cars State/province Victoria Key actor type State/province Jurisdiction Victoria Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved State of Victoria Department of Transport Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift taxes and levies Off-street various Away from excessive supply AND towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted Does not fit neatly into this framework/None of the above implemented 2006 Goals of the reform According to the Congestion Levy Bill 2005 (Vic): "The levy is designed to reduce traffic congestion in Melbourne’s inner city by acting as a financial deterrent to drivers who arrive and leave during commuter peak hours and park all day in the city car parks. The levy aims to encourage suburban commuters to use public transport to travel into the city and car park owners/operators to convert long-stay car parking spaces, which will attract the levy, into short stay parking spaces, thereby creating more parking options for shoppers and visitors." Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) It is not clear to me yet what the immediate impetus for this policy was in 2005 or so. Can you help provide this information? Detailed description of the reform According to Hamer et al. 2012: "The congestion levy is a charge that applies to off-street parking spaces within a 15 km2 area of inner Melbourne (‘the levy area’). The Congestion Levy Act 2005 (Vic) provides the legislative basis for the levy and details when the levy is payable. "The levy applies to all non-exempt, long-stay parking spaces within the levy area. Long-stay parking spaces include all parking spaces in a private off-street car park, and all parking spaces in a public off-street car park that are either: (i) set aside for on-going parking; or (ii) used for parking for at least 4 h, commencing at or before 9.30 am and ending at or after 9.30 am. Thus, in private car parks and reserved spaces in public car parks, it is the supply of the parking space that attracts the levy. By contrast, parking spaces that are offered to the public for use on an hourly or daily basis attract the levy because of their use. The method of charging for casual parking, i.e. a flat fee or an hourly rate, is irrelevant as the criteria are the time of arrival and the length of stay. On-street car parking spaces do not attract the levy." In 2015 the area to which the levy applies was extended. In 2019, the levy was AUD1140 per space per year in category 1 area (central business district) and AUD1020 in category 2 area (to the north and south of the CBD). According to Taylor 2020, spending of income from the levy 'is not visible or local or clearly tied to transport improvement'. The income is mostly absorbed into general revenue. Image credit: Gracchus250, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:City_of_Melbourne_skyline_view_from_Southbank_with_Princes_Bridge_and_Flinders_St,_2018.jpg CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons Results or impacts It is not clear whether the levy has reduced congestion or led to any shift away from community by car. Hamer et al. 2012 found that (to some extent) the levy had been passed on to short term parking users in commercial garages, rather than discouraging long-term parkers (commuters) or reducing the supply of parking spaces. The design of the system is also thought to actually discourage workplace parking fees. Sources and acknowledgements Hamer, P., Young, W., & Currie, G. (2012). Do long stay parkers pay the Melbourne congestion levy?. Transport Policy, 21, 71-84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X12000303 State Revenue Office Victoria "Car Parks: A congestion levy applies to off-street private and public car parking spaces in inner Melbourne". https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/car-parks Elizabeth Taylor (May 2018) City of Melbourne Transport Strategy Refresh Background paper – Car Parking, https://apo.org.au/node/179486 Elizabeth J. Taylor (2020) "Australia: Melbourne" in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. Last updated: 23 Mar 2021

Edmonton "Open Option Parking" (parking minimums abolition) When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Edmonton City Council adopted "Open Option Parking", which means that minimum on-site parking requirements have been removed from Edmonton’s Zoning Bylaw. Developers, homeowners and businesses can now decide how much on-site parking to provide. Why should you care? This is a striking case of wholesale abolition of parking minimums across a whole car-dependent city. The framing of the reform as "Open Option Parking" is noteworthy and may be worth emulating. Campaigners for a similar reform in Vancouver in Canada are already running with this framing. It is also unusual in that the City of Edmonton with about 930,000 people accounts for a very large proportion of the metropolitan area of 1.3 million people. This reform therefore applies to most of the metropolitan area, including large areas that are car-dependent suburbia. Country Canada Vehicle type cars State/province Alberta Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Edmonton Primary motivation Multiple Agencies involved Edmonton City Council and its Urban Planning Committee (UPC) Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift minimums abolition Off-street various Promotes all three Adaptive Parking paradigm shifts What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted R: Relax about parking supply and stop boosting it implemented 2020 Goals of the reform According to https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/comprehensive-parking-review.aspx: "Designing our city around parking amenities instead of people has resulted in wasted space and wasted business opportunities. Eliminating parking minimums is a practical, fiscally responsible move that delivers significant long-term benefits for Edmonton, including: * Improving choice and flexibility in how businesses and homeowners use their properties and meet their parking needs. * Moving us closer to achieving the vibrant, walkable and compact city envisioned in ConnectEdmonton and the draft City Plan... * Removing an economic barrier to new businesses and more diverse, affordable housing options. ... * Supporting more diverse transportation options and climate resilience. ... * Enabling opportunities for businesses and homeowners to share parking or lease out space to nearby properties. ..." Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) A coalition of advocates on various related issues successfully campaigned for this change by highlighting the costs of the status quo, the opportunities of change and the low risks of change. An important part of this was emphasizing that removing minimums did not mean getting rid of parking; it just meant letting the market decide the right amount of parking (see https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/19/parking-minimums-video). A multi-step process of study, investigation and consultation occurred between 2018 and 2020 before the final decision. Detailed description of the reform "Open Option Parking means that minimum on-site parking requirements have been removed from Edmonton’s Zoning Bylaw, allowing developers, homeowners and businesses to decide how much on-site parking to provide on their properties based on their particular operations, activities or lifestyle. Removing parking minimums doesn’t necessarily mean that no parking will be provided. Businesses and homeowners know their parking needs best and have an interest in ensuring they are met, making this approach more likely to result in the “right amount” of parking. Under the new rules, barrier-free (accessible) parking will continue to be provided at rates comparable to today and bicycle parking requirements have increased. Maximum parking requirements have been retained downtown, and expanded in Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and main street areas. Design requirements for both surface and underground parking facilities have also been enhanced, and opportunities created for businesses and homeowners to share parking or lease out parking spaces to nearby properties. The City will monitor the impacts of shared parking and report back to City Council in early 2021. While the change will be transformative, it will also be gradual. Only coming into effect as homes and businesses are slowly developed or redeveloped across the city in the decades ahead." Source: Parking Rules for New Homes and Businesses, https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/comprehensive-parking-review.aspx Results or impacts This reform is recent. Change will emerge incrementally. It will be interesting to see the results. "The City will monitor the impacts of shared parking and report back to City Council in early 2021." Sources and acknowledgements Parking Rules for New Homes and Businesses, https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/comprehensive-parking-review.aspx Strong Towns, November 24, 2020, Ending Parking Minimums: How to Make the Case with Facts and Options, https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/19/parking-minimums-video Caley Ramsay, June 24, 2020, Edmonton removes minimum parking requirements city-wide, Global News, https://globalnews.ca/news/7101796/edmonton-removes-minimum-parking-requirements/ Last updated: 13 Mar 2021

Digital Blue Zone on-street parking payments in São Paulo When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform In 2016, the Digital Blue Zone (Zona Azul Digital) system for on-street parking fees replaced the older Blue Zone coupon-based system that had been used since 1975. So the primary way to pay for on-street parking in São Paulo is now by mobile app. Why should you care? This is an important example of a city that has never adopted expensive in-street parking payments infrastructure such as parking meters. It previously used pre-paid paper coupons and has now shifted to a mobile-only payments system. It seems to be working well and may therefore be a model for many other cities seeking to avoid the high capital cost of installing parking meters or parking pay stations. Country Brazil Vehicle type diverse State/province State of São Paulo Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of São Paulo Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Municipal Secretariat of Mobility and Transport ( Secretaria Municipal de Mobilidade e Transportes) Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing On-street (many contexts) Helpful for park-once-and-walk approach What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted Both P and On implemented 2016 Goals of the reform Shifting to digital mobile-based payments enabled improved monitoring, enforcement, and service to motorists (such as notifications that their paid parking time is running out and the possibility to extend - within a time limit). Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The rise of digital parking payment app technology made it possible to shift away from the older and more problem-prone system that used paper coupons displayed in vehicles. The coupon system made enforcement expensive and was prone to fraud and counterfeit coupons. Detailed description of the reform In 2016, the Digital Blue Zone (Zona Azul Digital) system for on-street parking fees replaced the older Blue Zone coupon-based system that had been used since 1975. So the primary way to pay for on-street parking in São Paulo is now by mobile app. As of early 2021, the system is transitioning to a new concessionaire for the system. Sporadic users have the less convenient alternative of paying at a designated 'payment office' (mostly local shops I think). There is an sms-based option for registered users who find themselves short of mobile data. São Paulo has never had parking meters or parking pay stations. Between 1975 and 2016, Blue Zone paid on-street parking used a system of pre-purchased coupons. The cost of a Digital Blue Card is currently 5 Rials (just under one US dollar). Motorists can use either one or two such cards when parking. In most areas, one card enables one hour of parking. So there is an effective time limit of 2 hours. In certain special areas, one card equates to 2 or 3 hours of parking, so that the time limit is 4 or 6 hours. Results or impacts According to Ferreira et al., the new digital payment approach has overcome the fraud problems of coupons. By 2017, it had already led to a 60% higher level of revenue from on-street parking fees. It has made enforcement much more efficient and enables tracking of the usage of on-street parking. Success is reflected in the fact that the system is rapidly being emulated in many other cities in Brazil. Sources and acknowledgements Marcela Alonso Ferreira, Hannah Arcuschin Machado, Fernando Túlio Salva Rocha Franco, Fernando de Mello Franco (2020) Brazil: Sao Paulo, in in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. http://www.cetsp.com.br/consultas/zona-azul.aspx [in Portuguese] https://www.estapar.com.br/zona-azul-digital/o-que-mudou [in Portuguese] Last updated: 2 Mar 2021

Barter, Paul (2020) ‘Singapore’ in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. Abstract Singapore’s urban transport policies have long been unusual in vigorously slowing the growth of growth of car ownership. Its parking policies and practices do also have some unusual feature but are also conventional in several important respects. Most Singapore neighbourhoods are park-once-and-walk areas, served by relatively well-managed public parking. Yet parking supply policy still relies heavily on trying to seeks to meet parking demand on-site with each building, using minimum parking requirements. Nevertheless, there are some signs that parking policy may be made more consistent with Singapore’s wider transport and urban development priorities. Link to the final publisher version https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012815265200011X Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf

Urban parking minimums banned by New Zealand's national government When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform New Zealand's National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) is banning local governments that administer "urban environments" (settlements with more than 10,000 people) from including minimum car parking requirements in their district plans. "Urban environments" include most of the country's suburban areas. These Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils have until 20 February 2022 to removed any minimum parking requirements. Only 'accessible carparks' can be required (parking for use by persons with a disability or with limited mobility). Why should you care? There is a growing trend for higher levels of government (national or state/province) to restrict the ability of local governments to enact excessive parking requirements. This is a striking example. This bans all but small settlements from enacting any parking minimums at all. Please note that this does not require local governments to impose parking maximums. They can't require parking but they do not have to restrict parking. Country New Zealand Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type National Jurisdiction New Zealand Primary motivation enable housing or other infill Agencies involved The NPS-UD is administered by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), with support from Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga - Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. Local councils are required to act Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift minimums abolition Off-street various Away from excessive supply AND towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted R: Relax about parking supply and stop boosting it implemented 2020 Goals of the reform The overall goal of the NPS-UD is to "removes overly restrictive barriers to development to allow growth ‘up’ and ‘out’ in locations that have good access to existing services, public transport networks and infrastructure." The purpose of the removal of parking minimums "is to enable more housing and commercial developments, particularly in higher density areas where people do not necessarily need to own or use a car to access jobs, services, or amenities. It will enable urban space to be used for higher value purposes other than car parking, and remove a significant cost for higher density developments. Developers may still choose to provide car parking in many areas, but the number of car parks will be driven by market demand." (NZ Ministry for the Environment, July 2020) Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) New Zealand has been facing severe housing price escalation and acute housing affordability problems in its major cities. Detailed description of the reform New Zealand's National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) bans local governments in all Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils from including minimum car parking requirements in their district plans. These Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils have until 20 February 2022 to removed any minimum parking requirements. Only 'accessible carparks' can be required (parking for use by persons with a disability or with limited mobility). Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils are those with jurisdiction over an “urban environment”, defined as an area that "(a) is, or is intended to be, predominantly urban in character; and (b) is, or is intended to be, part of a housing and labour market of at least 10,000 people”. Note that "urban environments" include most of the country's suburban areas. Instead of using parking minimums, councils are instead urged to implement parking management to deal with parking supply and demand issues. On page 13 of the NPS-UD, Policy 11 states: "In relation to car parking: a) the district plans of tier 1, 2, and 3 territorial authorities do not set minimum car parking rate requirements, other than for accessible car parks; and b) tier 1, 2, and 3 local authorities are strongly encouraged to manage effects associated with the supply and demand of car parking through comprehensive parking management plans. " Backdoor parking minimums are also banned. On page 28: "3.38 Car parking If the district plan of a tier 1, 2, or 3 territorial authority contains objectives, policies, rules, or assessment criteria that have the effect of requiring a minimum number of car parks to be provided for a particular development, land use, or activity, the territorial authority must change its district plan to remove that effect, other than in respect of accessible car parks." The NPS-UD also stops Tier 1 councils from setting building height limits of less than six storeys within walkable distances of existing and planned rapid transit stops, city centres and metropolitan centres. Results or impacts The deadline has not yet passed (writing in April 2021) so it is too soon to tell. Sources and acknowledgements New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (July 2020) National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 – car parking fact sheet, https://environment.govt.nz/publications/national-policy-statement-on-urban-development-2020-car-parking-fact-sheet/ New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (July 2020) National policy statement on urban development, https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/national-policy-statements/national-policy-statement-urban-development/ New Zealand Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (July 2020) National policy statement on urban development, https://www.hud.govt.nz/urban-development/national-policy-statement-on-urban-development-nps-ud/ Matt L (July 27, 2020) Supercharging Urban Development, https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2020/07/27/supercharging-urban-development/ Henry Cooke (Jul 23 2020) Government moves to end minimum carpark requirements and remove low height-limits in bid to increase dense housing, Stuff, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300064493/government-moves-to-end-minimum-carpark-requirements-and-remove-low-heightlimits-in-bid-to-increase-dense-housing Last updated: 28 Apr 2021

Hong Kong low residential parking maximums in the 1970s When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Hong Kong aggressively restricted residential parking supply in the 1970s using strict parking maximums. The parking maximums were part of the HK Government's policy of restraining private car ownership that began in the early 1970s. Although parking maximums were abandoned in 1981 (with a switch to fiscal methods of restraining car ownership growth), the low parking maximums of the 1970s left a legacy that led to modest parking supply and high parking prices in Hong Kong ever since. There are lessons here, even if this might be difficult for others to emulate. Why should you care? The 1970s residential parking maximums in Hong Kong were very unusual. Perhaps the only case of the deliberate use of parking maximums to constrain the growth of car ownership. Although the policy was in place for less than 10 years, those years were a period of high economic and population growth. So the parking maximums policy seems to have been a key part of why Hong Kong has very high parking prices and modest parking minimums even now. Country China (HK was a British Colony at the time) Vehicle type cars State/province Hong Kong SAR Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction Hong Kong Primary motivation influence vehicle ownership Agencies involved I don't know Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift maximums or caps (including minimums switched to maximums) Off-street residential Away from excessive parking supply What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts ended ​ Goals of the reform Restraint of private car ownership. Parking was a key tool, perhaps THE key tool of that period, aimed at restricting car ownership growth in the 1970s as part of the HK Government's policy of restraining private car ownership that began in the early 1970s. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Economic success in Hong Kong in the late 1960s and early 1970s had led to rapidly rising car ownership (starting from an extremely low level) which quickly caused severe traffic and parking problems in the context of very high population densities within the urbanized areas. Detailed description of the reform Hong Kong had strict maximums for residential development starting in the early 1970s (exact year needed) and 1981, when parking minimums were adopted instead. In 1981, there was a switch to relying on 'fiscal tools' such as increased vehicle purchase and ownership taxes and fuel taxes to contain car ownership growth. At that time, the HK Government decided that restricting residential parking supply was no longer necessary. The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines 1992 edition issued by the Planning Department, explained the earlier switch away from restricting parking supply: "Parking standards for residential development were formulated in the light of the introduction of fiscal measures to restrict directly the rate of growth in private vehicle ownership and the abandonment of restraint on car ownership by a restriction of residential parking spaces. The overall intention of the standards is to ensure that, except in special cases, future residential developments should have sufficient parking provision to match the current and anticipated car ownership of residents. Generally, therefore, minimum rather than maximum standards are set. This should enable developers to be aware from outset of the extent of parking provision they can plan." We can see that there was a switch to a more conventional parking supply approach. Nevertheless, the 1970s policy left its mark on HK parking. Results or impacts Despite being in place for less than a decade, these residential parking maximums had a long-term impact on Hong Kong parking supply and prices. Hong Kong's population rose from 3,995,400 in 1970 to 5,109,812 in 1981. And the 1970s was (mostly) a time of rapid economic growth in Hong Kong. So a large increment of Hong Kong housing took place with very low rates of parking. The success of the policy meant Hong Kong still had low car ownership in 1981 and the government fully intended to continue to restrain the growth of car ownership. So the residential parking minimums that were adopted in 1981 were set at low levels. In fact, in a context of low car ownership, all of Hong Kong's parking minimums were set at low levels. So the parking maximums of the 1970s were an important influence on low rates of parking with buildings built BOTH in the 1970s AND in buildings built since then. Parking prices in Hong Kong are very high. For example, as of early 2021, monthly parking fees in HK public housing range from HK$1,150 (USD148) per month in the most outlying area facilities with the lowest occupancy rates to HK$2,890 (USD384) per month in central areas with high parking occupancy rates. Sources and acknowledgements Paul Barter (26 Nov 2013) "Hong Kong has parking minimums AND very expensive parking. How can that be?" Reinventing Parking https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/11/hong-kong-has-parking-minimums-and-very.html Last updated: 13 Mar 2021

Japan's Proof-of-Parking rule (shako shomeisho) When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform To register a car in Japan, prospective owners need to obtain a "garage certificate" from local police to prove that they have access to an off-street parking space. It is not tempting to corruptly obtain or fake a certificate because overnight on-street parking is banned across Japan. So there is no point cheating on proof-of-parking. Why should you care? Many other places consider emulating this policy, including several states in India. However, there is low awareness that the policy works well mainly by being twinned with the ban on overnight on-street parking. Nevertheless, there may be ways to succeed with such a policy by twinning it with a robust on-street parking permit system. Country Japan Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type National Jurisdiction Japan Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Government of Japan Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift proof-of-parking Off-street residential Promotes all three Adaptive Parking paradigm shifts What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted R: Relax about parking supply and stop boosting it implemented 1962 Goals of the reform The intention in Japan has always been to make sure its narrow streets are not clogged with parked vehicles. The policy was NOT explicitly aimed at restricting car ownership. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) As car-ownership started to take off in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Japan's very narrow residential streets faced becoming hopelessly clogged with parked cars. Detailed description of the reform Under the 1962 Garage Act, motorists in Japan need to obtain a "garage certificate" (or "Shako shomei sho") from local police in order to register a car (or when changing address as a car owner). The certificate is to prove that they have access to an off-street parking space. Japan's proof-of-parking rule does not require ownership of a parking space. Permission to lease the space is good enough. If you are renting in a building with no parking you are not prevented from buying a car. You would just have to find a parking space to lease nearby and prove this to the local police. The rule initially applied only to the large cities, according to a footnote on page 243 of "Local Government in Japan" by Kurt Steine (1965). However, it now seems to apply much more widely. Japan's proof-of-parking rule has an essential twin policy, the ban on overnight parking, which effectively bans on-street residential parking. This ban on all-night parking makes it futile to cheat on the proof-of-parking rule. Suppose a motorist did cheat or bribe to somehow get a fake proof-of-parking certificate, where will you put your car? You still can't park overnight in the streets. Try it and the car would still be towed away within a day or two. Conversely, the proof-of-parking rule makes the overnight on-street parking ban more politically feasible by undermining claims from motorists that they have no choice but to park in the street. This synergy with the overnight parking ban also explains why it is no big deal that an exception is made (in some areas) for tiny cars or "kei" cars, which have yellow license plates. Owners of these little cars do not need to prove access to a parking space but they still can't park in the streets overnight. Results or impacts The policy created a demand for leased parking near homes, which the market has generally managed to meet, at a market price. The proof-of-parking regulation eliminated the need to have high, American style parking requirements for residential buildings. There are parking minimums but they are low and small buildings are exempted. The regulation also removes the need to have residential parking permits. It has also probably had the indirect effect of avoiding the pressure to increase street width standards for residential areas to accommodate parking. This was not the goal but the policy probably slowed the growth of car ownership in Japan’s cities. This impact must be greatest in places with high property prices, where leased parking prices are also high. This deters car ownership in precisely the highly accessible, densely-developed, transit-rich contexts where car ownership is least necessary. Along with strong public transport and other road pricing policies, the proof-of-parking regulation must have helped foster low car ownership in the urban cores of Japan’s large cities, where high real estate prices translate into expensive overnight parking. For example, leased residential parking prices of more than $300 per month were seen advertised in inner-city Tokyo during late 2009 fieldwork for this study. Sources and acknowledgements Barter, P.A. (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila. Available in hard copy or on-line via https://www.adb.org/publications/parking-policy-asian-cities. https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/06/japans-proof-of-parking-rule-has.html https://www.reinventingparking.org/2010/08/japan-style-proof-of-parking.html https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/12/learn-from-japan.html Last updated: 15 Mar 2021

Dublin parking maximums When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Dublin applies parking maximums not minimums. The 'car parking standards' in Dublin 'shall be generally regarded as the MAXIMUM parking provision and parking provision in excess of these maximum standards shall only be permitted in exceptional circumstances'. I assume that Dublin previously had minimum parking requirements but it is unclear to me when this occurred. Why should you care? Without fanfare it appears that Dublin (and perhaps many or all cities in Ireland) has been applying parking maximums, rather than minimums. However, the policy is interesting in that the goal seems to be not only to avoid excessive parking provision but also to avoid excessively low provision. So, despite imposing maximums, the spirit of this policy therefore seems less relaxed about the possibility of low-parking buildings than a reform such as Edmonton's, where minimums have been abolished without imposing maximums. Country Ireland Vehicle type cars State/province Province of Leinster Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Dublin City Primary motivation Unknown Agencies involved Dublin City Council Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift maximums or caps (including minimums switched to maximums) Off-street various Away from excessive parking supply What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts implemented ​ Goals of the reform This example of maximums is not only concerned with limiting parking supply. The language in the document, 16.38 Car Parking Standards, suggests that the parking standards aim for 'right-sized' parking provision with developments. The goals seem to be to both avoid shortage AND excessive provision and to aim for about the 'right' amount of parking for each context. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) I don't know and would like to find out. Detailed description of the reform Dublin's 'car parking standards' 'shall be generally regarded as the MAXIMUM parking provision and parking provision in excess of these maximum standards shall only be permitted in exceptional circumstances' (Dublin City Council, 16.38 Car Parking Standards). The parking provision standards are set according to three zones: 'Parking Zone 1 is generally within an inner city location where transport corridors intersect, or that has significant interchange potential. Parking Zone 2 occurs alongside transport corridors and the remainder of the city falls under Parking Zone 3.' Although the standards are said to be maximums, the relevant text also expresses concern about the risk of inadequate parking. For example, 'Parking provision below the maximum may be permitted provided it does not impact negatively on the amenities of surrounding properties or areas and there is no potential negative impact on traffic safety. In certain cases, parking can be restricted even below the prevailing maximum for that location: 'In addition, the planning authority may require the maximum number of car parking spaces specified in Table 16.1 to be further reduced where it is considered that the surrounding road network is not sufficient to cater for the volume of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development.' The documents do not mention minimums but there is some hint that parking minimums are applied in some cases at least. For example, 'Given the high accessibility by public transport to Zone 1 there shall be no minimum requirement for car parking in that zone', which seems to imply that there might be minimums in other zones or that the parking standards may be considered to be a target level of provision, not just a maximum. In practice it appears that developers are expected to provide parking at rates at or below the maximums but to also justify themselves if providing substantially less parking than the standard. Results or impacts I don't know and would like to. Sources and acknowledgements Dublin City Development Plan 2016–2022: Written Statement, Section 16.38 Car Parking Standards, https://www.dublincity.ie/dublin-city-development-plan-2016-2022/16-development-standards/1638-car-parking-standards and https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/2020-08/written-statement-volume-1.pdf (p.362) Last updated: 14 Mar 2021

Berlin abolition of minimum parking requirements When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Berlin abolished its minimum parking requirements, only keeping requirements for disability spaces and bicycles. However, it did not impose maximums. Why should you care? This is one of only a few cases of a whole large city that has been without parking minimums for more than 20 years now. It would be useful to have more detailed information on the results of this. Note that on-street parking management was improved but it still has weaknesses. Furthermore, strong parking management is restricted to only a few districts and chaotic on-street parking situations are common in many parts of the city. But according to Jos Nino Notz, there is no political push of any significance to try to reinstate minimum parking requirements. Country Germany Vehicle type cars State/province Berlin (State) Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction Berlin Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Decision by Berlin Senate. More information needed on detailed implementation agency or agencies. Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift minimums abolition Off-street various Towards park-once-and-walk AND away from excessive supply What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted R: Relax about parking supply and stop boosting it implemented 1997 Goals of the reform More information needed. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) More information needed. Detailed description of the reform Berlin abolished its minimum parking requirements, only keeping requirements for disability spaces and bicycles. However, it did not impose maximums. This no-parking-minimums regime applies to the whole city of 3.3 million people and almost 900 square kilometres. Parking within buildings is not exempted from counting towards the allowed floor area under the zoning rules (although outdoor surface parking is exempt), according to Mr Kunst. If this is true, developers in Berlin must sacrifice some other floor space if they want to provide parking in a building. Results or impacts Mr Kunst and Jos Nino Notz (see sources) mentioned some disappointment among reformers that parking supplied after the abolition of minimums was not as low as had been hoped. According to the Park4SUMP report 'Parking Standards as a steering instrument in urban and mobility planning' (p.17): "The construction of parking spaces in Berlin has developed according to the city area and the price segment of a project. At the top end of the market, more parking spaces are built because they are a selling point." On the negative side, the same report mentions: "The lifting of the parking space construction obligation makes the implementation of mobility management more difficult and reduces the city’s influence on the creation of parking spaces. Mobility management schemes saw the investor offer for example cheap tickets for public transport, car sharing and bike sharing instead of building parking spaces, but these can no longer be a requirement on the developer. In addition, there is no revenue from the compensation payment that is common in other German cities when the required parking spaces are not built." Does anyone know of more formal reports or studies on the results? Sources and acknowledgements Conversations with several reliable people, including Mr Friedemann Kunst, Head Department of Transport of the Berlin Senate and Mr Eckhart Heinrichs of LK Argus consulting. Park4SUMP (Jan 2021) "Parking Standards as a steering instrument in urban and mobility planning", CIVITAS, https://park4sump.eu/index.php/news-events/news/improving-parking-standards-sustainable-mobility Also the Reinventing Parking podcast episode with Berlin parking expert, Jos Nino Notz https://www.reinventingparking.org/2018/10/Berlin-model-or-warning.html Last updated: 13 Mar 2021

Unbundled parking in Singapore public housing When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Parking in Singapore's public housing estates, built by HDB, was free-of-charge at first. At some point (in the 1970s or1980s?) parking fees were introduced both for people (mainly residents) seeking long term 'season' parking and for short-term visitor parking. Why should you care? It is not widely known outside Singapore that car owners in public housing in Singapore pay at least S$960 per year (and usually more) for home-based parking. Country Singapore Vehicle type diverse State/province ​ Key actor type National Jurisdiction Singapore Primary motivation fairness/social justice Agencies involved Housing and Development Board (HDB) Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift unbundling Off-street residential Unknown or unclear or not applicable or other What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented ? Goals of the reform I don't know if this goal was articulated at the time but the idea is that only the users of the parking, and not other people, should pay for the parking that is provided in the estates. The principle that parking in HDB should not be subsidised by government nor cross-subsidised from other HDB business lines (such as housing) was stated by the Auditor General in 2004. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) More information needed on what was happening at the time that parking fees were introduced. Detailed description of the reform Parking in Singapore's public housing estates, built by HDB, was free-of-charge at first. You might say that this means that parking was bundled with HDB flats. However, the term 'bundled' seems a little odd here, since HDB parking has never been allocated to specific flats or vehicles. It has always been pooled. Motorists seek a vacant spot within the parking area near their flat. At some point (in the 1970s or1980s?) parking fees were introduced both for long term 'season' parking and for short-term visitor parking. In other words, HDB residential parking is now 'unbundled'. Residents who wish to park a car or motorcycle within the estate where they live must purchase a season parking permit from HDB. As an example, the price per month for season parking in covered parking (mostly multi-storey car parks) in areas well away from the city centre is S$110 Tier 1 car, S$120 Tier 2 car and S$17 for motorcycle. See https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/car-parks/season-parking/season-parking/application-procedure [S$1 = USD0.76 in early 2021] [Tier 1 season parking rate will apply to a resident's first car of the household. Resident must be the registered flat owner/ occupier/ tenant living in the HDB precinct served by the car park. Tier 2 season parking rate will apply to the residents' subsequent cars and all cars of non-residents.] [Background: About 80% of Singapore citizens and permanent residents live in HDB estates, mostly in flats that they own on a 99 year leasehold basis. Rental flats are a small percentage of flats. This means that a very wide cross-section of socio-economic groups all live in HDB estates.] Results or impacts This policy fosters housing affordability and equity by ensuring that households that do not own a vehicle (many of whom cannot afford one) are not made to cross-subsidise the cost of providing parking for the households that do own vehicles. Sources and acknowledgements Barter, Paul (2020) ‘Singapore’ in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. Auditor General. 2004. “Report of the Auditor-General for the Financial Year 2003/04”. Singapore: Auditor General. Housing & Development Board (HDB) Car Parks information. https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/car-parks Barter, P.A. (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila. Available in hard copy or on-line via https://www.adb.org/publications/parking-policy-asian-cities. Last updated: 2 Mar 2021

Montreal parking tax with higher rates on surface parking When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Montreal imposes a special tax on all non-residential parking spaces in the central area (downtown and adjacent inner areas). Exterior surface parking is taxed at a higher rate than indoor parking. In 2013, the tax rate for surface parking was doubled to increase the incentive for such parking lots to be redeveloped. Why should you care? Montreal's parking tax is applied to all non-residential parking in the central area. It has apparently played a strong role in spurring the redevelopment of many surface parking lots in the area (although a careful study of the impacts and possible side-effects would be good to see). Country Canada Vehicle type cars State/province Quebec Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Montreal Primary motivation enable housing or other infill Agencies involved City of Montreal Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift taxes and levies Off-street various Away from excessive supply AND towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts implemented 2010 Goals of the reform Gaining revenue for public transport and prompting redevelopment of parking were twin goals of this parking tax. The 2013 parking tax rate hike on surface lots was strongly and explicitly linked to the goal of reducing the number of outdoor parking lots and promoting residential development. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The excessive number of surface parking lots in central Montreal were seen as "an inefficient use of space which is to be discouraged" and as promoting "an unsustainable car-dependent lifestyle and retards the development of large swaths of downtown" (Alfaro, 2010). Downtown Montreal has seen a residential development boom since about 2005 or so. Detailed description of the reform Montreal imposes a tax on all non-residential parking spaces in the central area (downtown and adjacent inner areas). Perhaps this should be termed a 'levy' since it applies to parking spaces regardless of whether they are open to the public and whether they are priced or not. Exterior surface parking is taxed at a higher rate than indoor parking to create a stronger incentive for surface parking lots to be redeveloped. In 2013, to increase this incentive the tax rates for surface parking were doubled, while the tax rate for indoor parking remained unchanged. Upzoning around the same time further increased the incentive for the owners of surface parking lots to redevelop. At around the time that the parking tax was imposed, the city also cracked down on illegal unregistered surface parking lots. Downtown Montreal had numerous surface parking lots before the parking tax (although less so than Canada's more car-dependent prairie cities. There are two zones, with higher parking tax rates in the central business district (boundaries shown in the image below from Spacing Montreal) and lower parking tax rates in central neighbourhoods beyond the CBD. Initially the highest charge was CAD19.80 per square metre for a surface lot in the central business district (about CAD300 per year for a three by five meter parking space). The initial tax rate for surface parking in the the central neighbourhoods zone was CAD14.85 per square metre. These rates were doubled in 2013. The lowest initial charge was CAD4.95 per square metre for an indoor lot in the zone beyond the central business district. In 2010, the city expected that the tax would collect around CAD20 million per year. The revenue generated from this tax is earmarked for improving public transport. According the the City of Montreal (ca. 2016), "There are close to 49,000 parking spots downtown, 11,520 of them on-street and 37,400 in off-street lots. Surface parking lots represent 19% of all off-street parking." The image above shows surface parking lots in central Montreal in 2010. Image credit Spacing Montreal, http://spacing.ca/montreal/2010/01/17/the-parking-lot-tax/ Results or impacts Anecdotally, many surface parking lots in central Montreal have been closed and redeveloped since the parking tax was imposed. News reports attributed much of this to the incentives from the parking tax, although upzoning and the ongoing development boom must have also played a role. In 2013, it was reported that "a combination of higher taxes and the transformation of downtown lots into condos has driven indoor parking prices up nearly 12 per cent in Montreal, year over year, the highest leap in the country." (Lampert, 2013) Fears were expressed before the parking tax was imposed and when the rates were increased that it would have a negative impact on business and investment in the core and prompt development beyond the parking tax areas. Can anyone point me to any solid evaluations of the impacts of this parking tax? Sources and acknowledgements Devin Alfaro (January 17, 2010) The Parking Lot Tax, Spacing Montreal, http://spacing.ca/montreal/2010/01/17/the-parking-lot-tax/ Will Montreal Parking Tax Promote Redevelopment or Relocation? Planetizen, https://www.planetizen.com/node/60485 Allison Lampert (January 29, 2013) Taxes on Montreal parking lots have doubled, The Gazette, https://globalnews.ca/news/385451/taxes-on-montreal-parking-lots-have-doubled/ Kristian Gravenor (Oct 25, 2012) Parking squeeze: Downtown businesses feeling it, https://montrealgazette.com/business/montreal-parking-squeeze-with-above-ground-lots-disappearing-and-the-prices-of-indoor-spaces-soaring-businesses-downtown-are-feeling-the-effects City of Montreal (ca. 2016) Downtown Strategy BUILDING ON MOMENTUM 2016 Consultation Document, https://ocpm.qc.ca/sites/ocpm.qc.ca/files/document_consultation/vmvma-16-026_strategie_centre-ville_final.pdf Last updated: 1 Apr 2021